The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. -- MelanieN ( talk) 22:48, 21 August 2015 (UTC) reply

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst: spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst: canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst: csm|username}} or {{subst: csp|username}}.

Supporters and Opposers of Iran Nuclear Deal (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article does not seem encyclopedic. Though well sourced, it is just a list of all the people who have an opinion about the Iran Nuclear Deal. WP:NOTDIR Natg 19 ( talk) 22:15, 14 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 ( talk) 22:16, 14 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 ( talk) 22:16, 14 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 ( talk) 22:16, 14 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete. This is already fairly well covered at Joint_Comprehensive_Plan_of_Action#Reactions and ultimately this page is just a list of names. There's really no true encyclopedic value in listing the various politicians from each area that have voiced an opinion on this deal. This is pretty much WP:INDISCRIMINATE information when you get down to it. I'd say that some of this could maybe be merged into the main article, but there's already quite a bit of detail as it is and I think that any more detail might bog things down. There might be some merit in having an article about the reactions as a whole, but a long list of names prefaced by a couple of paragraphs of text doesn't accomplish this. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:50, 15 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete - It is non-encyclopedic and agree with Tokyogirl79 and nomination. — CutestPenguin ^Hangout 08:19, 15 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Comment The creator of the article has left me a comment here stating his case as to why the article should stay. I have pointed him to this discussion for him to further state his case. Natg 19 ( talk) 22:35, 15 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete A lot of the names seem of no relevance to the deal struck. Support and oppose is clearly divided along party lines in the USA. Not everybody shouting something is relevant and this is far more a coat rack. The Banner  talk 14:18, 16 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep Hello, I recently noticed that you nominated my article for deletion. While you are right that my article is just a list of people who support and oppose the Iran nuclear deal, it is very similar to other articles like mine's, such as the article List of supporters of same-sex marriage in the United States, List of opponents of same-sex marriage in the United States, or even Endorsements of various politicians, such as that of Hillary Clinton, or of other Endorsements for the Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016. What my article and the other articles mentioned have in common is this:the articles are all lists of who supports a particular issue or not. In fact, they all do not have a lot of information other than listing off supporters and opposers of a particular cause. Since the Iran deal is very important, as well as controversial, to our generation and lifetime, it makes sense, in my opinion, to present to readers the makings behind the debate. Plus, my article does indeed mention the Public Opinion of the Iran Deal, has the guidelines for the deal repeated (but can still be merged), and while my introduction, like the Iran deal, is not perfect, the Introduction can and will become more developed over time;furthermore, more details unfolding about the Iran deal will be presented in my article as well in order to make it look less like, what you say, "a list of all the people who have an opinion about the Iran Nuclear Deal." Now, I understand the strong urge to delete my article, since it probably does not belong in Wikipedia anyways, but there are many articles that do not belong on Wikipedia as well. For instance, the 2015 FIFA Women's World Cup knockout stage as well as the 2015 FIFA Women's World Cup statistics probably do not belong on Wikipedia because they can be easily merged with the 2015 FIFA Women's World Cup page, so they could easily be deleted. Therefore, if you are so concerned about deleting my article, then think about why you have approved of my draft in the first place. Clearly, this article has good article standards, featured article standards, is a stand-alone list, and is developing, but incomplete, according to the Grading Scheme of Wikipedia Articles. But what I suggest as a last-minute gambit is this:transport the Reactions page from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action page over to my page so as to remove any doubts about my article's effectiveness. Ultimately, you can delete my article and risk losing valuable information on Wikipedia, or you can accept it with goodwill, knowing that the reason why it even exists in the first place is because it is "professional, outstanding, and thorough," and is "useful to nearly all readers"[1]. I hope you consider my opinion and judge my article based on its effectiveness and merit, not based on its flaws. parsaf34 ( talk) 17:44, 16 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Please read "Other stuff Exists" to see why the argument you put forth holds very little (if any) weight. Hasteur ( talk) 13:00, 20 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep, but I would suggest dividing into separate lists of supporters and opposers. While quite long, the author's rationale is essentially correct. To respond to other comments, the controversy surrounding Schumer indicates that this dispute has (at least partially) transcended party lines. Additionally, there has been more than sufficient media coverage of individuals' support or opposition to the deal -- not of the individuals themselves, but of their reaction to the deal. As such, this subject would be notable in and of itself, and I think it meets the criteria of WP:LISTN. North of Eden ( talk) 00:50, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete Not sure how much the author knows about this topic. I was listed as opposing the deal, but I certainly do not oppose the deal, and in fact, signed a public letter to that effect. This is not helpful to those who know the topic and not helpful to those who don't know the topic. (Sharon Squassoni) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.202.130.182 ( talk) 15:23, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Comment Sharon Squassoni, I fixed the issue at hand and made you a supporter instead. I just misinterpreted your statement about the deal and thought that you had opposed it. To those of you with concerns, I say that I do know what the deal is because my parents were born in Iran, and so therefore I an Iranian, even though I was not born in Iran. In fact, I had created this article during my recent trip to Iran, and had just came back yesterday. So not only can I research about the issue at hand, but also understand the implications of the deal as well. As I said before, and say again, this article is not perfect, just like any other article on Wikipedia, but I have consistently tried to make it better for everyone. I understand that I have committed libel in my article, and I apolgize to Miss Squassoni for that. I know that just apologizing to her is not good enough: I also apologize to any reader who has read my article in the past few days and who has witnessed this act of deception that does not characterize Wikipedia. I am an honest person, but even the honest of people make mistakes too. Furthermore, please understand that I continuously edit and improve the article every day since August 10th, so it will be understandable even to the average person, because Wikipedia is meant to condense information to appeal to the average person as well as the most intellectual people. Again, I hope you judge my article based on what it can become, not what it is now. After all, my article is sill "useful to nearly all readers" and still is "professional, outstanding, and thorough," knowing-and this might be embarrassing to myself-that it was created by a recent high school, college-bound, graduate who had just joined Wikipedia only 8 days ago. parsaf34 ( talk) 11:27, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Inaccuracy is not in and of itself a criterion for deletion. Please do fix any similar errors, however; it's unseemly for an encyclopedic article to fail verifiability standards. That said, I still think the list topic is notable and worthy of inclusion based on the publicity individuals have received for their support/opposition to the deal. North of Eden ( talk) 23:44, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep This article is very useful for people who need to understand the people on both sides of this important issue. It can be used as a reference by many different individuals and groups. Nfamili ( talk) 20:22, 17 August 2015 (UTC) — Nfamili ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
  • "It's Useful" arguments hold very little (if any) weight in debate. Hasteur ( talk) 13:04, 20 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep The article answers basic questions about the Iran's nuclear deal, which is useful for many people who are not really interested in reading long and complicated articles about this issue and it doesn't hurt to keep it just like many other online information. It's well written and organized, especially from a very young and smart person, who looked for such information online and couldn't find it, so he decided to create such an article by himself. Therfore, the article should be kept, but should become more fruitful with more information. Rvaziri ( talk) 20:51, 17 August 2015 (UTC) — Rvaziri ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
  • "it doesn't hurt to keep it" carries very little weight. Hasteur ( talk) 13:24, 20 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete. A list of people holding yes/no opinions on a specific current issue is fundamentally not encyclopedic. A detailed discussion of a past event, with a list of leading supporters of each position, is a very good idea, and it's quite reasonable to have lists of people by affiliations (e.g. lists of politicians by party affiliations, lists of people by religious affiliation), but simply a "Supporters and Opposers of CurrentPoliticalTopic", regardless of its title is not a good encyclopedia topic. For example, people's opinions can change, so you can't ensure that something that was correct yesterday is correct today: it could become incorrect just because of the passage of time, especially if someone on this list changes his mind and doesn't announce it until they take a vote. We need lists of "fixed" concepts, concepts that can't easily change, e.g. past events such as legislators by the way they voted on a bill, but please note that even after the US Congress votes on this matter, a complete list of supporters and opposers will be a matter of undue weight on the vote. As someone said at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of current top 40 albums (UK), Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS. An article that becomes outdated and has to be rewritten every week is essentially "List of top 40 albums (UK) for the week XX-YY Jan 2010", which would be deleted for being a current event of no lasting significance. Plus, the accuracy of articles should not depend on whether a single editor can be bothered to maintain it. Nyttend ( talk) 12:46, 20 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete: I have no objections to merging the significantly notable supporters/opposes to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action article (assuming consensus) but to have "Person of Title REF" repetitions only serves to make the article in question an indiscriminate collection of data and not a justifiable list. Hasteur ( talk) 13:30, 20 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Comment: I also have no objections to merging the article with the JCPOA one. Still, just ask Sulfurboy how this article got approved in the first place: it meets WP:LISTN criteria, which indicates its notability, attains featured article status, attains good article status, has no major problems, is well-written, has verifiability with no original research, meets the six B-class criteria, and attains featured list status. The people who cry Delete just do not understand that there are other yes/no articles on specific issues just like mine's, and I consistently update my article based on the changing times. For instance, I fixed the issue behind listing Sharon Squassoni as an opposer to a supporter, which was more correct, and added more sourcing to confirm that misunderstanding. Please understand that I will accept any decision made by the discussion and comply with its terms. parsaf34 ( parsaf34) 11:00, 20 August 2015 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.